The Allahabad High Court has raised a significant issue concerning the validity of serving GST show-cause notices and orders merely by uploading them on the GST Common Portal.
The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot examined whether an assessee can be denied a statutory remedy of appeal on the ground of limitation when the relevant assessment order was allegedly not communicated through a legally recognised mode of service.
The principal issue before the High Court was whether the statutory period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST Act can begin to run merely because an order has been uploaded somewhere on the GST portal.
Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026
The Court observed that Section 107 provides that the limitation period for filing an appeal is triggered from the date on which the order is communicated to the assessee or appellant. The petitioner contended that the relevant show-cause notice had not been uploaded under the ordinarily visible “Notices and Orders” section but under “Additional Notices and Orders”, making it difficult for the assessee to become aware of the proceedings.
The petitioner’s counsel further argued that the common GST portal itself could not automatically be treated as an authorised mode of service for every notice or order under the GST legislation. The petitioner also highlighted the practical difficulties faced by taxpayers in navigating the GST software and contended that statutory rights should not become dependent upon a taxpayer’s ability to locate communications buried within multiple layers of the portal.
During the proceedings, reliance was placed on the Allahabad High Court’s earlier Division Bench judgment in Laxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, where similar concerns relating to the GST portal’s interface and service of statutory communications had been considered.
The Court noted the difficulty involved in locating notices and orders on the portal. According to the judicial observations reproduced in the present order, a taxpayer may have to navigate through “Services”, then “User Services”, then “Notices and Orders”, and finally “Additional Notices and Orders” before discovering a statutory communication.
The earlier Division Bench had observed that the absence of a clear indication on the taxpayer’s dashboard could make it extremely difficult even for an honest taxpayer to know that a show-cause notice or order had been issued. Such procedural complexity, the Court noted, could have serious consequences where the taxpayer consequently fails to participate in adjudication or misses the statutory period for filing an appeal.
The Court examined Section 169 of the GST Act, which provides different methods through which a decision, order, summons, notice or other communication may be served.
These include direct delivery, registered or speed post/courier, communication to the registered email address, making the communication available on the common portal, publication in a newspaper, and, in certain circumstances, affixture at the taxpayer’s place of business or the concerned department’s notice board.
Significantly, the Court noted the distinction between the statutory deeming provisions applicable to certain modes of service and those applicable to communication through email or the Common Portal. The Court observed that the deeming fiction under Sections 169(2) and 169(3) does not operate in the same manner for service through email and the Common Portal.
The Court also examined Section 146 of the GST Act, which concerns the Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal.
The earlier Division Bench judgment had examined the notifications issued under Section 146 and noted that the notifications identified the Common Portal for specified purposes such as registration, payment of tax, furnishing returns, computation and settlement of integrated tax and generation of electronic way bills. The Court noted that these notifications did not expressly authorise the Common Portal for uploading notices and orders for the purpose of statutory service under the GST Act.
The Court further noted that the Revenue had not disputed the absence of an additional notification specifically authorising the Common Portal for service of GST notices and orders.
The department sought to contend that even if the notice or order was uploaded on the portal, an email notification regarding such uploading constituted sufficient communication because email is one of the modes recognised under Section 169(1)(c).
The Court, however, noted the distinction between sending the actual notice or order by email and merely sending an intimation that a notice or order has been uploaded on the portal.
According to the Court’s reasoning, unless the notice or order itself is sent to the registered email address furnished by the assessee, the Department cannot simply rely upon Section 169(1)(c) on the basis of an email informing the taxpayer that a document has been uploaded on the portal.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that where a statute prescribes a particular manner in which something must be done, it must be done in that manner.
Analysing Section 146 along with the relevant notifications, the Court concluded, in the earlier Division Bench reasoning relied upon in the present proceedings, that uploading notices and orders on the Common Portal was not an authorised mode of service unless properly supported by the statutory framework.
The Court also highlighted the practical problem associated with the portal interface. A taxpayer may not immediately see a notice or order upon accessing the dashboard and may have to navigate through multiple sub-sections before locating the document.
One of the significant aspects of the Court’s reasoning concerns the broader role of technology in tax administration.
The Court recognised that the GST regime represents a major shift from paper-based tax administration to a technology-driven compliance system. The Common Portal is intended to simplify compliance, improve transparency and facilitate the interaction between taxpayers and tax authorities.
However, the Court stressed that accessibility and intelligibility of a digital platform acquire legal significance when the platform is used as the interface through which statutory rights and obligations are communicated.
The Court observed that a taxpayer’s substantive rights cannot depend upon his or her ability to navigate an obscure or unintuitive digital interface. It further noted that allowing serious statutory consequences to follow from a notice or order being placed in an inconspicuous location on the portal, without reasonable indication to the taxpayer, could undermine the purpose of a unified electronic compliance system.
The Court went beyond merely identifying the procedural difficulty and called upon the Department to revisit the methodology adopted for serving show-cause notices and orders.
Among the measures suggested were prominent dashboard alerts for statutory communications; mandatory pop-up notifications; OTP-based acknowledgement for important legal communications; automated SMS alerts; and a separate dashboard section dedicated to statutory notices and orders.
According to the Court, such measures could make the Common Portal an effective instrument of communication rather than merely a repository where taxpayers are required to search for critical legal documents.
The Court highlighted the practical consequences of inadequate communication. Where a taxpayer is unaware of a show-cause notice or adjudication order, the taxpayer may be unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings or file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period.
The Court noted that this not only causes hardship to taxpayers but also results in additional litigation because taxpayers approach constitutional courts after discovering orders that they were allegedly unaware of.
The Court’s earlier reasoning specifically held that mere uploading of a notice or order under “View Additional Notices and Orders” could not, by itself, be treated as valid service on a registered entity.
The Court also considered the Revenue’s reliance on Section 160(2) of the GST Act.
The provision contemplates situations where service cannot subsequently be questioned if the notice or order has already been acted upon by the person concerned or where service was not challenged during earlier proceedings.
The Court accepted the Revenue’s contention to the extent that where an assessee has actually received the show-cause notice, responded to it and contested the proceedings, a subsequent challenge to the service merely because the notice was uploaded on the portal would not necessarily invalidate the proceedings.
Thus, the issue is particularly significant in cases where the taxpayer had no actual knowledge of the notice or order and consequently did not participate in the proceedings.
The Division Bench principles reproduced in the order set out important consequences for GST proceedings.
First, uploading a show-cause notice on the Common Portal alone would not be sufficient to establish service unless receipt is acknowledged or the assessee files a reply.
Second, where a show-cause notice was uploaded only on the portal, no reply was filed and an ex parte order followed, the proceedings may be restored to the stage of issuance of the show-cause notice, enabling the assessee to file a reply within four weeks and requiring the Department to proceed thereafter after granting an opportunity of hearing.
Third, where an order-in-original was passed after contest but was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the limitation period for filing an appeal would not be triggered in the circumstances considered by the Court, giving the aggrieved assessee an opportunity to file an appeal within four weeks.
Fourth, where an appeal had already been dismissed on limitation grounds because the underlying order was served only through portal uploading, the appellate order could be set aside and the appeal restored for adjudication on merits.
Fifth, where an ex parte adjudication order followed non-service of the show-cause notice and the subsequent appeal was dismissed for delay, both the adjudication and appellate orders could be set aside and the proceedings restored to the show-cause notice stage.
The matter was directed to be listed on August 20, 2026, and, pending the next date of hearing, the Court stayed further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order dated July 20, 2022 and the appellate order dated January 20, 2026.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
